Ashirwad Foundation v. Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare & ORS

CWP No.22498 of 2014 (O&M) {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22498 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision:20.09.2017 Ashirwad Foundation ... Petitioner Vs.

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, State of Punjab and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Ms. Shefali Sobti, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Shireesh Gupta, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sumeet Mahajan Senior Advocate with Mr. Rinku Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Nitish Garg, Advocate and Ms. Ramneeq, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, Advocate, for Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from abating and indulging in fraudulent and illegal trade practice, whereby the drugs/medicines are sold to the patients at highly exorbitant prices in the garb of inducing the patients Savita 2017.09.29 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CWP No.22498 of 2014 (O&M) {2} to take loans from banks having tie-ups with pharmaceutical companies in connivance with certain medical practitioners in total contravention to the guidelines laid down by medical council of India. Directing the Director General of Police, State of Punjab to investigate and initiate appropriate remedial measures and required actions under the relevant provisions of the law against the guilty.

2.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition, drug in question, i.e., Pegylated Interferon has since been withdrawn and the same is not being supplied by majority of the pharmaceutical companies. 3.

In view of the aforesaid fact, it was prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petition has been rendered infructuous and the same may be disposed of as such.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner. 5.

In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. 6.

This order shall also dispose of all the pending miscellaneous applications.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE September 20, 2017 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Savita 2017.09.29 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh